McChesney's
book is a compilation of his best political economy of media work
in the past two decades. It contains 23 separate offerings under three
topic headings. In them he covers "enduring issues" and
"emerging dilemmas." Part I of this review discussed some
of them. More follow below. The entire book is must reading and contains
new material never before published.

The Battle
for the US Airwaves, 1928 - 1935

McChesney
recounts the beginning. It explains much of the current dilemma and
necessity to confront it.

The notion
that the dominant media system is "natural" and was adopted
enthusiastically is pure myth. Opposition to what emerged was considerable.
It insisted that network, for-profit, commercial broadcasting was
inimical to the public interest, and that there should be a substantial
nonprofit sector.

In the
mid-1920s, things looked much different than later on. Several hundred
nonprofit broadcasters began operating in the decade's early years,
mostly affiliated with colleges and universities. Commercial ones,
in contrast, weren't even professionals. They were owned and run by
newspapers, department stores, power companies and others in the private
sector.

NBC was
established in 1926, CBS the following year, and neither had an impact
until the 1927 Radio Act's passage. Commercial advertising, the pillar
of today's system, hardly existed until 1928. It was very controversial
and very unpopular throughout the 1920s. Before 1927, it was generally
agreed that nonprofit broadcasting should have a significant, even
a dominant position, in the US system.

Then came
the Radio Act that year. It established the Federal Radio Commission
(FRC). It was to make the airwaves orderly, reduce the number of stations,
allocate broadcast licenses, and favor those applicants that would
best serve the "public interest, convenience or necessity."
The FRC was renewed in 1928 and then indefinitely in 1929. It used
these years to solidify the emerging industry's dominance and make
no effort to change it.

FRC held
meetings with commercial broadcasters. Nonprofits and nonbroadcasters
were left out, so it's not surprising how things developed. FRC's
reallocation plan came out under General Order 40. Of the 90 available,
it set aside forty 50,000 watt clear channels for one occupant nationally.
The remaining 600 broadcasters got the other 50 to operate simultaneously
on at much lower power levels. Those in the same region would share
a frequency at different times of day. The squeeze was on, and by
autumn 1929, 100 fewer stations were on-air.

Not surprisingly,
the networks won big. They got a flying start, and by the early 1930s,
controlled 30% of the stations, including all but three of the clear
channel ones. In addition, commercial advertising began growing substantially.
Equally dramatic was the decline in nonprofit, noncommercial broadcasting.
The FRC reduced their hours and power and made it harder for them
to generate funds to keep operating. As a result, by 1930, their numbers
dropped to less than one-third their 1927 total of around 200. By
1934, nonprofit broadcasting accounted for about 2% of total broadcast
time. Business was king. The potential of the medium was beginning
to be understood. The FRC was on board to support it, and said it
was in "general public service" to do it.

Nonetheless,
nonprofit opposition emerged. A National Committee on Education by
Radio (NCER) was formed to get Congress to set aside 15% of channels
for its use. Other nonprofit broadcasters joined the battle, and so
did newspaper owners (at first) and civic groups. The former ended
up partnering with for-profit broadcasters, while remaining opposition
elements continued the struggle. They were against the status quo
and wanted reform. Three themes underlined their position:

-- the
airwaves should be a public resource and broadcasting a public utility;

-- most
important, an advertising-supported for-profit network would use its
programming to defend the status quo and would shut out unpopular
or radical ideas; and

-- reformers
criticized broadcast advertising and the limitations of for-profit
broadcasting; it would work against cultural, educational, and public
affairs efforts that are less suited to commercial operations.

Opposition
groups proposed a number of plans with three getting the most attention
in the early 1930s:

-- have
Congress authorize an extensive and independent broadcasting study
to devise a whole new system; and

-- have
the government establish a number of local, regional, and national
nonprofit stations; they'd be subsidized by taxes and operated by
a congressionally approved citizen board of directors; these stations
would supplement, not replace, commercial operations.

None of
the proposals were considered. For-profit operators worked against
them. The opposition movement was divided in its tactics, and it faced
three major barriers - the radio lobby, consisting of NBC, CBS and
the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). They went all out
with a PR blitz to establish the "status quo."

Against
this, reformers got little coverage while the press was strongly on
board with the broadcasters. So was the legal community. The ABA established
a Standing Committee on Communications in the late 1920s and stacked
it with commercial broadcasting attorneys, The handwriting was on
the wall.

The campaign
to restructure commercial broadcasting went through three distinct
phases from 1930 to 1935:

-- from
1930 to when Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933; the period was
"the high watermark for popular discontent with US broadcasting;"
it won over House and Senate support for setting aside nonprofit channels;
nothing passed because economy recovery legislation took precedence;
more significantly, powerful leaders (like Clarence Dill, chairman
of the Senate Commerce Commission) blocked anti-commercial reforms;
so did Sam Rayburn in the House;

-- from
1933 until the Communications Act of 1934; it established permanent
broadcasting law; reformers hoped Roosevelt would support them; instead
he ducked; he was in no mood to confront a "powerful and entrenched
communications industry," especially when passing New Deal legislation
took precedence; broadcasters seized the moment; they got House and
Senate leaders on board; got the Communications Act passed, the FCC
established, and pretty much everything they wanted; Roosevelt signed
the new law in June 1934; it was called a "New Deal in Radio
Law;" indeed so for the broadcasters; and

-- in January
1935, the FCC formerly reported to Congress that there was no need
to alter the status quo; nonprofits lost out, and for the rest of
the 1930s "the industry became economically and politically consolidated;"
by decade's end, the public no longer had a say over what kind of
system was best; as far as government and industry are concerned,
they still don't, but surging reform movements blossomed post-2000
to change things; McChesney is one of its leaders; more on that below.

The Commercial
Tidal Wave

Corporate
giants today are so dominant that they compete less on price and more
on what economists call "monopolistic competition." Advertising
is key. It needs "advertising-friendly policies and regulations
to allow it to flourish," and its the major source of media revenues.

Most notably
on television, it's "ubiquitous." Yet the greater number
of ads, the more alike they become, less believable, and less people
pay attention to them. One solution - run more ads. The airwaves wreak
with them, and the "commercial tidal wave" takes many forms.
On radio and television, they consume nearly one-third of each hour
compared to around half that volume before 1982.

Advertisers
have also gotten very creative and more intrusive. A proliferation
of TV "infomercials" for one thing, and entertainment programming
"product placement" is everywhere. The idea is to seamlessly
weave products into story lines so they're hard to ignore. It's not
cheap with Coca Cola one of many examples. It paid Time Warner $25
million for the characters of one prime time show to "drink Cokes
in each episode." Time Warner also developed "virtual"
advertising by getting products placed retroactively in popular shows.

Radio is
used as well. Increasingly, broadcasters use airtime to hype products
they're paid to advertise. Hollywood is also cashing in. Disney's
Miramax Films cut a deal to make Coors the studio's official beer
and feature it exclusively in Miramax productions. Then consider James
Bond films. They once shunned product placements. No longer in today's
"very competitive movie environment." It's now a necessity,
and look at the payoff. The 2002 Bond film, Die Another Day, so wreaked
with them that Variety called it an "ad-venture," and the
Financial Times said James Bond is now "licensed to sell"
- with a $120 million payoff for the film studio.

Product
placements show up everywhere, and children aren't exempt. Far from
it. The animated film, Foodfight, had "thousands of products
and character icons from the familiar (items) in a grocery store."
Children's books also feature branded items and characters, and millions
of them have snack foods as lead characters.

ESPN is
cashing in as well with help from digital ad firm Princeton Video
Image. It places changing product billboards on walls behind home
plate on Major League baseball telecasts. Only viewers see them, not
fans at games because they're not there.

Overall,
the wall separating ads from editorial is disappearing because of
media companies' greed, advertisers' enormous clout, and the concentrated
power of eight dominant advertising/PR agencies that control 80% of
all spending. They have great leverage - over product placement and
program content. They're also clever enough to produce ads that are
indistinguishable from entertainment.

Sum it
up and here's the problem. Advertising is all-pervasive. We drowning
in it and paying the price. It's corrosive to society and intrusive
in our lives. It fosters false values, wants and needs. It makes otherwise
normal people shop excessively for what they never knew they wanted
until Madison Avenue mind manipulators convinced them. Years ago,
economist Paul Baran said makes us "want what we don't need (nonessential
consumer goods and services) and not....what we do (health care, education,
clean air and water, safe food, good government, and so forth)."

Things
are so extreme, McChesney puts it this way. We're "rapidly moving
to a whole new paradigm for media and commercialism, where traditional
borders are disintegrating and conventional standards are being replaced
with something significantly different." It marries content with
commercialism so pervasively they're indistinguishable, and it shows
up everywhere all the time - television, radio, movies, publications,
music, popular culture, schools, universities, public vehicles, commercial
ones, public broadcasting and radio, art, subways, restrooms, and
any and all other ways advertisers can reach people whether or not
we approve.

McChesney
calls it "the greatest concerted attempt at psychological manipulation
in all of human history." It increasingly targets younger people.
Acclimate them early because they become adult customers, and the
children's market besides accounts for tens of billions of dollars
globally and growing.

Hyper-commercialism
is troubling. It's contrary to democratic practices, crowds out other
forms of speech, and diverts attention away from more vital concerns.
It also produces "profound cynicism and greed (that's) cancerous
to public life." It reduces "our most treasured values....to
commodities provided by the market." McChesney believes resisting
advertising is "essential" because of its corrosive effect
on society. Who can disagree.

The Political
Economy of International Communications: Foundations for the Emerging
Global Debate About Media Ownership and Regulation

Across
the world, media and telecommunication systems are a key profit making
area in modern capitalist societies. But the idea that it established
"naturally" is rubbish. In the US and elsewhere, state policy
is crucial to what emerges. It's true going back to 19th century America
when the US Postal Service was the nation's earliest "telecommunication
infrastructure." Publisher postal subsidies were instituted.
They're important to this day, but very much favor media giants.

Government
then was and now is an active player. The question is in whose interests
and what values are encouraged. Seen this way, powerful special ones
have corrupted US communication policy historically. Today, more than
ever, and they constitute a "legitimacy crisis for capitalist
media in a democratic society."

Earlier
in the last century, "professional journalism" became the
solution. It was to be nonpartisan, politically neutral and objective
instead of representing the views of owners. It would also be produced
by professionals trained to be neutral.

The result
was tepid journalism reflecting elite opinions unthreatening to entrenched
interests. By any standards, it's weak democracy or barely any at
all. It then got worse.

Post-WW
II, the US dominated nearly all global negotiations, including communication
ones. Prior to the 1960s, colonial states had to accept whatever systems
were imposed on them. After becoming independent, however, a New World
Information and Communication Order (NWICO) campaign was established.
But it went nowhere after the US and UK withdrew from UNESCO.

Globalists
had other ideas, and they've blossomed since the 1980s. Neoliberalism
and corporate globalization emerged and unleashed national and international
policies favoring business. Markets were the solution to everything
while unions, regulations, taxes, tariffs, public investment, and
so forth were considered restraints of trade.

These ideas
exploded in the 1990s - capitalism's golden age and a heyday for communication
giants. After the Soviet Union collapsed and China embraced the market,
it was open-season for vast business expansion. Globalization became
the buzzword, and privatizing everything a universal solution for
developing states. As a result, direct foreign investment rose dramatically
along with a spectacular increase in international mergers and acquisitions.
These amounted to under $100 billion in 1987. By 2000, they grew tenfold
to $1.14 trillion. The world was being reconfigured into "a global
market for goods and services (and) an international production system,
complemented by an increasing global market for firms."

Giant communications
companies were at its forefront. Before the 1980s and 1990s, their
operations were mainly domestic, and in many countries state ministries
controlled telecommunication monopolies. It changed and fast.

Neoliberal
orthodoxy took over, WTO rules were established in January 1995, trade
barriers came down, communications giants took advantage, and the
US government backed their global expansion efforts. Then and now,
their goal was a global communications and entertainment oligopoly
controlled by a handful of international companies, mainly US-based.
One estimate puts the market potential in the trillions of dollars
annually.

Two distinct
features characterize the vision:

-- dominant
companies "moving across the planet at breakneck speed;"
the US market is well-developed, so overseas represents the greatest
potential and dominant media firms say they're "supranational
entities" regardless of where they're home-based; and

-- consolidating
into every market segment is the strategy; the guiding logic is also
to get big fast or get swallowed up by a larger competitor; in the
end, a mere handful of companies will be "end-game winners."

Today,
nine giants dominate global media markets, and nearly all rank among
the top 200 non-financial firms in the world. Five are US-based, and
consider their power. Among them they own:

-- the
major US film studies;

-- the
US TV networks;

-- 80 -
85% of the global music market;

-- most
satellite broadcasting worldwide;

-- all
or part of most cable broadcasting systems;

-- a dominant
portion of book and commercial magazine publishing;

-- all
or part of most commercial US and worldwide cable TV channels; and

-- a big
stake in European terrestrial TV; and more plus an endless appetite
for the greatest possible scale; the idea is to spread costs across
a large base, be able to outbid competitors, and maximize profits
at the same time.

Structural
changes in world advertising are also strongly linked to global media
consolidation. Further, globalization depends on a commercial media
system to market their wares worldwide. It, in turn, is partnered
with a handful of "super-advertising agencies" dominating
a $400 billion global industry and consolidating just as fast as media
companies.

About 100
second tier players are also important. Among them - Gannett, Knight-Ridder
and Thomson Reuters in the US and others around the world like Mexico's
Televisa, Venezuela's Cisneros Group, London-based Pearson plc, and
global publisher Reed Elsevier. These companies dominate their own
national and regional markets and have extensive ties and joint ventures
with the giants. Together, first and second tier operators control
much of the world's media - from TV and radio to publishing, films,
music, and so forth, and the entire system is still undergoing change
because of continued consolidation.

These companies
are in it together, but the race will determine who wins, so it's
likely to end up with a small handful of very large finalists. As
a result, the global media market is more a cartel than a competitive
marketplace. The largest firms have similar dominant shareholders.
They each own portions of the others. Their directorships interlock.
The CEOs all know each other, are on a first name basis, and communicate
regularly as they plot the future of their businesses.

First and
second tier operators are also connected through their investment
bankers - Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch among them.
Financial houses, of course, are matchmakers and make multi-millions
at their trade. For them, the more the better, and they had a heyday
in the 1990s with deals worth hundreds of billions.

Media content
also comes into play. At times it can be positive where media censorship
is common. Overall, however, it subverts local culture when it interferes
with profits. The "Hollywood juggernaut" concerns many countries
as US film exports expand. Of the top 125 1999 grossing ones, nearly
all were US produced, so it shows local audiences like them and more
for sure are coming.

Music as
well captured overseas markets with US recording artists getting 60%
of their sales outside America in 1993, although it fell to 40% in
1998 as local music still has great appeal.

Overall,
the combination of global media and neoliberalism is numbing. It reduces
everything to entertainment and light fare and results in profound
depoliticization. Case in point - 2008 America.

It's also
the driver behind communication industry consolidation. It made it
vast, quick, and got it accomplished in two phases:

-- a second
phase followed the first; by 2001, the technology bubble burst; equity
prices deflated, and a "dog-eat-dog" shakeout began.

Companies
were enormously indebted. Consolidation came at a high price. Companies
were reeling from debt. Some committed fraud to hide it. Write-offs
became unprecedented with AOL Time Warner the most noteworthy example.
After its market valuation plunged from $290 billion to $135 billion,
the company took a $54 billion "impairment charge for goodwill"
so shareholders would get stuck with the cost along with laid-off
employees by the many thousands.

Global
access to voice telephony was just as dramatic. Wired phone access
accelerated, and mobile phone usage expanded from a tiny 1990 base
to one billion users by 2002. In addition, as business expanded overseas
so did telecommunication providers to service it. The FTC backed it.
So did the IMF, World Bank, and new trade rules that smoothed the
way to opening markets everywhere. In 1997, the WTO Agreement on Basic
Telecommunications was established. It harmonized national operating
frameworks, bound its 70 signatories to firm commitments, enforced
them by a multilateral dispute settlement process, and greased the
way for easy market penetration.

From 1984
(before WTO) to 1999, about $244 billion in state-owned systems were
privatized - 90 of the 189 International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
membership. In addition, by 2000, 25 countries agreed to allow majority
foreign-owned carriers use their own controlled networks to provide
international voice service.

Between
1990 and 2000, mergers and acquisitions volume skyrocketed - an estimated
$1.616 trillion, and cross-border takeovers accounted for a large
share of it. Including investments and service revenues, telecommunications
expenditures totaled trillions of dollars. Investments were heavily
debt-financed. Banks lent an estimated $890 billion. An additional
$415 billion came from debt instruments, and $500 billion more from
private equity and stock issuance.

At its
peak, lucrative markets information-carrying over-capacity was stunning
(along with neglect in others) with most of it built from 1996 to
2000 - millions of fiber-optic cable circuitry, underseas cable laid,
and huge Internet investments for this burgeoning new technology.

Government
partnered in the enterprise. It deferred to business and investor
needs while neglecting overall social responsibilities and the nation's
basic infrastructure - roads, airports, power plants, bridges, and
so forth.

Until the
bubble burst, investors were having a party and so were industry players.
Rates favored business users. Workers lost collective bargaining rights.
Downsizing following, and so did consumer quality of service. They
were also victimized by scams and overbilling.

By the
second half of 2000, the industry got its comeuppance. It was routed
along with the dot-coms in a bloodletting they're still recovering
from. Giant firms began reporting huge losses, and most people know
the WorldCom story that got its founder and CEO Bernie Ebbers convicted
of fraud and conspiracy and given a 25 year prison sentence. Along
with Enron, it became the largest ever accounting scandal in US history.

Everything
came up roses in the 1990s. The power of global capitalism seemed
unstoppable. So even its opponents were resigned and largely quiescent.
Ignored was that none of this expansion was natural. It took plenty
of government help fueling it. It led to growing monopoly, higher
prices, and poorer service so powerful business interests could profit
at the public's expense. It's a familiar story going back generations,
but the stakes keep getting greater and the harm caused even worse.

Add to
it massive fraud, a corrupted business-government alliance, a historic
public rip-off, and chalk it up to defrocked market miracles. Those
of us committed to democracy have our work cut out for us. And in
view of the media's importance, it's crucial to democratize it.

-- policy
debates on these topics must be public; behind closed doors no longer
cuts it; and

-- the
public interest must be "reaccredited, strengthened, and enlarged;"
to a large degree, it should also be protected from direct state control
but not to the point of neglect.

Rich Media,
Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times

At a time
of technological wonders, communication breakthroughs, and near limitless
online ways to stay informed, our society is largely depoliticized.
Political involvement is weak, and it's evident when presidential
and off-year elections are held. Routinely, half or less of the electorate
turns out, and those most in need show up least often or not at all.
It mocks the idea of democracy, but who can blame people when candidates
are pre-selected, machines do our voting, candidates who lose are
declared winners, and winners don't complain.

What's
the cause? More than anything, the dominant media that's "become
a significant antidemocratic force...." They're larger and more
influential than ever. Combined they're the main information source
for most people, and it's in their interest to marginalize the public
to shut out any interference with their commercial aims. Profits uber
alles are paramount. Concentrated power and hyper-commercialism are
dominant, and when combined with the sorry state of today's journalism
it's easy to understand the problem. Fixing it will be no easy task.

The "corporate
media explosion" corresponded with the "implosion of public
life," and McChesney calls it "the rich media/poor democracy
paradox." He cites two components:

-- a political
crisis; our hyper-commercialized corporate media system bodes ill
for our politics and society; a crisis this great is totally off-limits
for discussion; how and by whom the media is controlled, and how it's
structured and subsidized should be at the heart of discussion; and

-- media
ideology; its defense is indefensible - that markets "give the
people what they want;" commercialized media are innately democratic;
so is nonpartisan, objective professional journalism; new technologies
are inherently democratic; and most important, the First Amendment
gives media giants and advertisers unfettered free speech rights without
public or government interference; this reasoning is no more credible
than the discredited American exceptionalism notion, except in its
negative sense.

Media concentration
was most notable in the 1990s, but it was powerfully that way earlier.
A handful of Hollywood studios dominated film production since the
1930s. Until cable and satellite TV, three networks dominated national
television. Too few companies publish the popular magazines most people
read, and from the 1960s to the 1980s, newspapers "underwent
a spectacular consolidation."

Now it's
much worse in the wake of the outrageous 1996 Telecommunications (giveaway)
Act. Mega-media deals followed, and unless stopped, more are coming.
Along with them, journalism keeps getting worse - in commercial and
so-called "public" spaces. The reasons again are covered
above - hyper-commercialism; PBS and NPR as corrupted as the giants;
the endless quest for dominance and profits; professional reliance
on "official sources;" labor's decline; the public shut
out altogether; a lack of local journalism; and the dismal state of
democracy overall.

Given the
above, reporters need no direction - serve your owners or find new
line of work. And when covering media political allies, it's de rigueur
to show favoritism and "swift boat" the opposition. It violates
fundamental journalistic canon, but at times of campaign frenzy it
shows how pervasive the practice is. And the more concentrated media
become, the worse it'll get.

The same
holds for what's aired, to what degree, and what isn't. Mass antiwar
and global justice protests barely get mentioned. But let celebrities
like OJ Simpson or even Bill Clinton run afoul of the law (or be perceived
that way) and it's wall-to-wall, round-the-clock headline news for
days or longer.

Other major
topics are also shut out - wars of aggression, a militarized society,
hugely repressive laws, erasing social services, silencing dissent,
rigging elections, pervasive corruption, the unprecedented wealth
gap, and far too many more to list that all should top media discussions
in a democratic society where journalists are supposed to hold the
powerful to account. McChesney sums it up saying "In the crescendo
of news media praise for the genius of contemporary capitalism, it
is almost unthinkable to criticize the economy as deeply flawed."
He quotes the Washington Post calling us a "perfect economy."
Indeed for the rich and them alone.

Next, he
discusses the Internet and calls its "rapid commercialization
and expansion....the most striking media and communication development
since January 1999." But alone, it's not magic and not a solution
to media concentration and dominance. In the digital age, they'll
continue to grow, partner and merge until we're left with a handful
of mega-global giants with potential veto power over world governments.
They pretty much have it now as well as large swaths of the Internet.

Worse still
is that governments hand it to them - secretly, behind closed doors
with no public involvement or press coverage. It shows since the late
1990s in the "shadowy history of how the Internet went from being
a public-sector creation to being the province of Wall Street."
Politicians from both parties were bought off to do it. Media influence
remains dominant, but a battle royal looms to preserve Net Neutrality,
and that topic is discussed below. But if media giants prevail, the
Internet will be as commercialized as all other media components with
the public left out in the cold.

There are
more concerns as well - violating our privacy, pervasive spying, shutting
out the poor, debasing democracy even more if the Internet is totally
commercialized, charging whatever the market will bear, censoring
content, and overall letting a potentially wondrous technology cost
more than it benefits.

With this
in mind, and the media giants insatiable quest for size and dominance,
now's the time to demand the unmentionable - reactivate antitrust
laws. Break up the giants along with other industry conglomerates.
A century ago, it dismantled the Oil Trust and in the 1980s AT &
T. Today, however, the only time trustbusting comes up is when one
industry sector challenges another, never when it's in the public
interest.

Nonetheless,
as media enlarge, its public trust betrayal worsens, and the battle
for Net Neutrality looms, anything is possible if a great enough groundswell
gets behind it. Frances Fox Piven cites four historical times (in
her book Challenging Authority) when people in America achieved the
impossible. Conditions produced outrage enough over the status quo
to erupt into a "disruptive protest movement." It shook
the political establishment and brought about transforming social
change - if only for a short time.

Media reform
pressures are now building at a crucial moment in our history. McChesney
put it this way in his 2007 book, Communication Revolution. We have
"an unprecedented (rare window of opportunity in the next decade
or two) to create a communication system that will be a powerful impetus
(for) a more egalitarian, humane, sustainable, and creative (democratic)
society." He calls it a "critical juncture" that won't
remain open for long. It's a "historic moment" in a "fight
we cannot afford to lose." In the digital age, "the corporate
stranglehold over our media is very much in jeopardy.." Citizen
actions have successfully challenged them. Important victories have
been won on ownership rules, public broadcasting, and exposing fake
news.

It now
remains to enlarge grassroots efforts, take the fight to the next
level, partner with other progressive campaigns, and force politicians
to respond or be replaced. Media giants won't lay back and take it.
They'll do all they can to quash reform efforts. So far they've had
everything their way, and "the smart money says that the big
guys (always) win." The "same smart money once said that
communism" would last forever and apartheid couldn't end peacefully.
It may turn out that the "smart money" isn't so smart. If
enough people join the fight for media justice, "anything can
happen."

The US
Media Reform Movement Going Forward

Here McChesney
examines the relationship of the political economy of media to the
media reform movement and how the former provides understanding of
the media's role in society. It's whether it "encourages or discourages
social justice, open governance, and effective participatory democracy."
Also vital is how "market structures, policies and subsidies,
and organizational structures shape and determine the nature of the
media system and media content."

For decades
US media scholars have been at odds with their counterparts around
the world. They assume a for-profit, advertising-supported corporate
media is a given. Major reform against capitalism is unthinkable,
"unrealistic, even preposterous" for a media system considered
inviolable.

Over time,
however, it became apparent that viewing a corporate-run media system
as "natural" was erroneous. That's how it was at earlier
key moments when the status quo was challenged - the 1900 - 1915 Progressive
Era and again in the 1930s and 1940s.

In the
last century's second half, media became a non-issue. Policymaking
was corrupt and commercial interests increasingly dominant. At the
same time (and like today), press coverage was nil. So when television
emerged it was "gift-wrapped and hand-delivered to Wall Street
and Madison Avenue without a shred of public awareness and participation."
FM radio, cable and satellite TV got the same treatment.

Things
hit rock bottom after 1980 at a time of Republican ascendence and
neoliberal ideology's emergence. It took its toll on political economy
of media scholarship. The field began declining and headed for obscurity.
At the same time, "something was happening." Vital research
was published and distinguished figures like Noam Chomsky, Edward
Herman and Ben Bagdikian produced it. Their earlier media critiques
are still cutting-edge and seminal.

They proved
the crisis of media, how inhospitable it is to democracy and social
justice, and how essential it is to change it. Progressive writers
and publications also emerged as well as media reform movements. Groups
like Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) were in the vanguard
and are now seen as trailblazers for today's burgeoning efforts.

Critics
at the time weren't just on the left. By the 1990s, things got so
bad even some conservatives became alarmed. Ownership was increasingly
concentrated, labor weak, journalistic standards dismal, and hyper-commercialism
overpowering. Further, editorial staffs were downsized, bureaus closed,
trivia got substituted for substance, and who could know what was
coming.

McChesney
cites the "tipping point" - early in the new millennium
"when the connection was made between the nature of the media
system and a variety of policies and subsidies that created it."
Global justice protests erupted, media activism grew, and the notion
that the US free market media system was preordained began to crumble.
Back room deals designed it, and benefits cut both ways for the dealers.
Politicians were rewarded for their efforts, and media giants got
an open field to get bigger. Public interest was off the table.

The key
moment came in 2003, and the issue was over new media ownership rules.
At the time, it looked like a slam-dunk for Big Media. George Bush
was president, Republicans controlled Congress, and three of the five
FCC members were Bush appointees. Media giants smelled victory and
went for the kill. In spring 2003, what could stop them.

An aroused
public could and did, and it seemed to materialize out of thin air.
Within a year, two million or more outraged people swamped the Powell
FCC and Congress with protests over the proposed relaxation of ownership
rules. McChesney calls it the moment when the "contemporary US
media reform movement was born," and ever since mushroomed dramatically
as millions in the country are fed up and won't take it any more.

They won
victories, and the Media Access Project (MAP) got one of them. In
June 2004, it prevailed in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC when the
Third Circuit Court threw out FCC's new rules. It ordered the agency
to reconsider its ill-advised changes that if enacted would be an
early Christmas for the giants. They included:

-- ending
the cross-ownership ban that prohibits a company from owning a newspaper
and TV or radio station in the same city;

-- eliminating
the previous ban on radio/TV cross-ownership and replacing both types
with a single set of cross-media limits;

-- a concocted
"diversity index" to determine cross-media limits; it was
based on assigning weights to the various media to determine if markets
retained enough diversity; it would only consider ownership limits
if by its formula there wasn't enough; it was pure deception because
in major markets like New York the FCC gave equal or greater weighting
to a community college radio station than The New York Times and local
ABC affiliate;

-- cross-ownership
limits only in smaller markets; in ones with eight or more TV stations,
proposed changes would have no cross-ownership newspaper, TV and radio
station restrictions;

-- a company
would be able to own two TV and six radio stations in the same market
if at least 20 "independently owned media voices" remained
after a merger; if only 10 remained, ownership would be limited to
two TV and four radio stations; and

-- redefining
National Market Share to mean the total number of households company
TV stations reach and raising the allowable ownership ceiling from
35 to 45%; a 39% compromise was reached to accommodate News Corp.
and Viacom; they already exceeded the allowable limit, so the deal
let them keep their stations.

Down but
not out, FCC tried again last year under new chairman Kevin Martin.
It proposed similar kinds of loose ownership rules. Unleashed a wave
of activist protests in response. Members of Congress from both parties
joined in. Martin ignored them, and last December 18 pushed through
a 3 to 2 party-line win.

Here's
where things now stand beyond the timeline of McChesney's book. On
April 24, the Senate Commerce Committee voted unanimously for a "resolution
of disapproval" to block the FCC's December 18 decision. To take
effect, it must pass the full Senate and did in a historic May 15
vote - by a near-unanimous voice vote showing strong bipartisan support.
Republicans and Democrats are united on this issue (so far), especially
in an election year when mass constituency opposition is hard to ignore.
Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration threatened a veto. Hopefully
it won't matter because too many in Congress feel otherwise.

The issue
is gaining traction in the House as well with two Net Neutrality bills
for consideration. On May 6, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act
of 2008 was introduced (HR 5353). It's to "establish broadband
policy and direct the (FCC) to conduct proceeding and public broadband
summits to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice
issues relating to broadband internet access services, and for other
purposes." It also amends the Communications Act of 1934.

On May
8, the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (HR 5994)
was introduced. It requires that ISPs operate and interconnect with
other network providers in a nondiscriminatory way. It applies to
content, applications and services, and establishes antitrust measures
for anticompetitive practices.

It now
remains to be seen how House and Senate legislation turns out, what
final forms they take, how the White House responds, and whether there's
enough support in Congress to override vetoes. Current efforts show
promise, and activists hope sentiment is turning their way. In time,
we'll know.

Back in
December 2002, McChesney co-founded the media reform group Free Press
and serves as its president. In 2003, it started off with a few staffers
and now has 35 and a membership approaching 400,000 and growing. In
five years, Free Press became the largest media reform group in the
country, but it's joined by dozens of others. Freepress.net lists
165, and two dozen formed the Media & Democracy Coalition in 2005.
In addition, local media reform initiatives are emerging throughout
the country with distinguishing characteristics:

-- media
concentration is key and efforts to reverse it are crucial; so is
the battle to preserve Network Neutrality, expose and end fake news,
protect and reinvigorate public and community noncommercial broadcasting,
and influence the course of the digital revolution democratically;

-- making
media policy a political issue; open it to public debate; make sure
people know there's nothing "natural" about the current
system, and that they have a right to participate in policy deliberations;

-- for
decades, the US was a media activism laggard; now it's a leader, but
its future remains undetermined; much depends on the success of the
political left; so far it's "weak and largely inchoate;"
the bottom line is whether people or corporations will control communication,
and that leads to the larger question of who should direct society
and what kind will emerge; according to McChesney, at some point ahead,
we're heading for "a direct confrontation with capital,"
and the outcome will determine it.

Millions
know what's at stake, and what's vital for a free and open society.
Today, we're light years from it. That no longer can be tolerated,
but it won't happen without systemic media reform. McChesney, Free
Press, FAIR, dozens of other media initiatives, and growing numbers
around the country, are more engaged than ever for it. McChesney calls
it "our moment in the sun, our golden opportunity," and
for media reformers, activists, progressives of all stripes, scholars,
political economists of media, and all of the above like himself "we
must seize it." Indeed we must. There's no turning back now.

Stephen
Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research
on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit
his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen
to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays
from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with
distinguished guests. Programs are also archived for easy listening.

Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.